Comparing apples to oranges is rational when comparing different fruits; comparing apples to beans is something else entirely. Likewise, injury prevention trials proposing warm-up interventions should strive to deliver reasonable comparisons. The contents and dosage of the intervention and control warm-ups may vary, especially in the context of pragmatic trials, but should be appropriately described to afford transparency and comparability. So, what is this elusive entity known as the ‘usual’ warm-up in injury prevention trials? And how may this affect the interpretation of the findings? This editorial explores the context and importance of the ‘usual’ warm-up in injury prevention trials and provides recommendations to harmonise future research. Warm-up protocols focused on injury prevention are often compared with other warm-ups to assess their relative effectiveness. Pragmatic trials often compare a standardised protocol (the intervention) to ‘usual’ warm-up (the comparator), and this is relevant to reflect current real-world practices. However, accurate evaluation of effectiveness requires clear descriptions of the content of the comparator warm-up protocols. Inadequate and incomplete reporting is more common than desirable, even in recent randomised studies published in high-profile journals.1–3 We describe three examples in detail to illustrate this problem. Example 1 : A cluster randomised trial compared the effectiveness of the warm-up programme ‘VolleyVeilig’ in reducing injuries (35 teams, n=282 players) to ‘usual’ warm-up (31 teams, n=236 players).1 While the ‘VolleyVeilig’ programme was described in detail, there was no information regarding the ‘usual’ …

中文翻译：

---

伤害预防试验中难以捉摸的“通常”热身：比较苹果和豆子的问题


在比较不同的水果时，将苹果与橙子进行比较是合理的;将苹果与豆类进行比较完全是另一回事。同样，提出热身干预的伤害预防试验应努力提供合理的比较。干预和对照热身的内容和剂量可能会有所不同，尤其是在实用试验的背景下，但应进行适当描述以提供透明度和可比性。那么，这个在伤害预防试验中被称为“通常”热身的难以捉摸的实体是什么呢？这对研究结果的解释有何影响？本社论探讨了伤害预防试验中“通常”热身的背景和重要性，并为协调未来的研究提供了建议。通常将侧重于预防损伤的热身方案与其他热身方案进行比较，以评估其相对有效性。实用试验经常将标准化方案（干预）与 “常规 ”热身（对照组）进行比较，这与反映当前现实世界的实践有关。然而，准确评估有效性需要对对照预热方案的内容进行明确描述。报告不充分和不完整的情况比理想的更常见，即使在最近发表在知名期刊上的随机研究中也是如此。1-3 我们详细描述了三个例子来说明这个问题。示例 1：一项整群随机试验比较了热身计划“VolleyVeilig”在减少受伤方面的有效性（35 支球队，n=282 名球员）与“通常”热身（31 支球队，n=236 名球员）.1 虽然详细描述了“VolleyVeilig”计划，但没有关于“通常”的信息......